1 The human mind cannot comprehend infinity
2 Infinity is a concept created by the human mind
Either way, I'm infinitely confused
We can understand the concept of infinity, but we can never witness or experience it (properly). I think that's the kind of middle ground between the two points there.
Like, we can understand that Pi is infinitely complex, but we will never actually calculate all of Pi.
A good question, though one without a definite answer.
In one respect, the answer would be no, the universe isn't infinite, and it has an end, somewhere. The problem then is that we can't comprehend an end; what's after that end? If the universe has a wall, what's on the other side? I suppose the answer to this could potentially be nothing, but again, because we can't truly comprehend nothingness, we have a hard time believing that.
Then in the other respect, the answer is yes; the universe is infinite, but once again, we perceive everything as having a start and an end, thus we can't comprehend anything going on forever.
Ah, but is it? If nothing exists outside of the Universe, then the Universe is expanding into nothing. From our perception, this isn't possible because it must be expanding into something, else it wouldn't be able to expand, yet we're basing that on that fact that something would need to exist in order for something else to expand into it, or to become larger.
As others have said, the 'true' answer to this question is likely beyond human comprehension. We like to think we're mega intelligent, but we have our limits, so when it comes to things we have no experience of, we won't understand the explanation.
1 The human mind cannot comprehend infinity
2 Infinity is a concept created by the human mind
Either way, I'm infinitely confused
That reminds me of a couple of quotes, the first by Albert Einstein; "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
And the second, I'm not sure who said it, but it goes something like; "If the human mind was simple enough to be understood, we'd be too simple-minded to understand it."
It's possible that the universe has stopped expanding, and is now shrinking. However, because all our systems of measurements are based on other measurements, and they're all shrinking at an equal rate, there's no way of telling.
Even the speed of light is only miles per second, both of which aren't now worth what they were in old money.
And because units of measure are shrinking, we think other bodies in the universe are going away from us, while they're actually rushing towards us at high speed (well, what would be high speed if speed hadn't been devalued).
A good question, though one without a definite answer.
In one respect, the answer would be no, the universe isn't infinite, and it has an end, somewhere. The problem then is that we can't comprehend an end; what's after that end? If the universe has a wall, what's on the other side? I suppose the answer to this could potentially be nothing, but again, because we can't truly comprehend nothingness, we have a hard time believing that.
Then in the other respect, the answer is yes; the universe is infinite, but once again, we perceive everything as having a start and an end, thus we can't comprehend anything going on forever.
It's a scary thought for sure.
Ah, but is it? If nothing exists outside of the Universe, then the Universe is expanding into nothing. From our perception, this isn't possible because it must be expanding into something, else it wouldn't be able to expand, yet we're basing that on that fact that something would need to exist in order for something else to expand into it, or to become larger.
It's complicated stuff!
'Universe' means 'everything' so the concept of there being something 'outside' it is nonsensical.
Same as 'before' the big bang. Time started then so the concept of 'before' is just as daft.
If you were to translate the works of Shakespeare into binary then that exact sequence of ones and zeros would appear in pi an infinite number of times.
'Universe' means 'everything' so the concept of there being something 'outside' it is nonsensical.
That might be how you define it, but that's more an opinion than an absolute.
The point in itself is irrelevant though, because (using your basis) if the universeisn't infinite, and there are boundaries, there's still no distinct proof that there isn't something else.
The Universe (to me) is the void between galaxies. It's not everything.
'Universe' means 'everything' so the concept of there being something 'outside' it is nonsensical.
Same as 'before' the big bang. Time started then so the concept of 'before' is just as daft.
If you were to translate the works of Shakespeare into binary then that exact sequence of ones and zeros would appear in pi an infinite number of times.
Just because pi is (probably) an infinite series, that doesn't imply that all possible sequences are contained within it. Although you may have come up with a plot to rival Michael Drosnin's bestseller. You just have to write a program that can search the first few billion digits of pi for spurious references to major historical moments, then find a really recent example that you can claim to have found before the event, along with some wild story of misadventure in which you failed to stop said event from occurring. If you like, I can act as your 'expert' who confirms that the likelihood of this being random is infinitely improbable. ;-)
Currently, yes. When the energy wave ends, the imploding annihilation wave of the constriction of the universe will shrink it over time until a possible new big bang or voluminous black hole is the final result.
Just because pi is (probably) an infinite series, that doesn't imply that all possible sequences are contained within it. Although you may have come up with a plot to rival Michael Drosnin's bestseller. You just have to write a program that can search the first few billion digits of pi for spurious references to major historical moments, then find a really recent example that you can claim to have found before the event, along with some wild story of misadventure in which you failed to stop said event from occurring. If you like, I can act as your 'expert' who confirms that the likelihood of this being random is infinitely improbable. ;-)
Pi is an infinite series, that is virtually certain. I don't understand why you think an infinite sequence of numbers could not contain any and all finite sequence of numbers? It makes perfectly logical sense to think that it would.
The argument against the "monkey and the typewriter" is that the monkey's actions are not truly random. Pi on the other hand is truly random (if it wasn't, we could calculate it to x decimal places without incredibly complex calculations).
For fun a few years back I looked into the squaring the circle problem. Being a programmer and mathematician, I was determined to either solve or understand why it didn't work, and I figured it out within a few hours. The problem is complexity vs simplicity. We can square two lines because we have incorrectly asserted a limited value on them. For example, if we measure 5cm with a ruler, what are the odds that it is exactly 5.0000000000...0? Virtually impossible. In reality, the "5cm" is completely immeasurable to true accuracy, as we can only measure to as far as our tools allow us. The reason a circle cannot be squared is that the circumference is not a finite length, we cannot simplify it to a number we understand in order to perform a calculation on it, as we can the side of a square. If we try to square a 5cm line to "real" values, we will also find that impossible. The only difference being with the line we incorrectly presume an end to it.
I've since concluded that virtually everything must be infinite, and we apply general concepts that are finite on top of it (consciousness, integers, etc). We have two apples, but what is an apple? It is a collection of atoms, and every apple is made up quite differently. The concept of an "apple" only exists at a macro level, underneath that it would be impossible to tell if a thing was an "apple" or not. It would be like specifying a drop of water in the ocean. Fortunately our brains work at a very macro level, so we can function, if we didn't we would be useless.
Okay, it appears that I was looking at a simulated image. I've only just noticed this. The image was just basically just saying that we live in a flat universe and not a rounded one.
Pi is an infinite series, that is virtually certain. I don't understand why you think an infinite sequence of numbers could not contain any and all finite sequence of numbers? It makes perfectly logical sense to think that it would.
The decimal expression of 1/3 is an infinite sequence of numbers and that certainly does not contain any and all finite sequence of numbers. The transcendality of pi may imply that it does (I do not know) but that is a different, more specialised case.
Comments
We can understand the concept of infinity, but we can never witness or experience it (properly). I think that's the kind of middle ground between the two points there.
Like, we can understand that Pi is infinitely complex, but we will never actually calculate all of Pi.
In one respect, the answer would be no, the universe isn't infinite, and it has an end, somewhere. The problem then is that we can't comprehend an end; what's after that end? If the universe has a wall, what's on the other side? I suppose the answer to this could potentially be nothing, but again, because we can't truly comprehend nothingness, we have a hard time believing that.
Then in the other respect, the answer is yes; the universe is infinite, but once again, we perceive everything as having a start and an end, thus we can't comprehend anything going on forever.
It's a scary thought for sure.
Ah, but is it? If nothing exists outside of the Universe, then the Universe is expanding into nothing. From our perception, this isn't possible because it must be expanding into something, else it wouldn't be able to expand, yet we're basing that on that fact that something would need to exist in order for something else to expand into it, or to become larger.
It's complicated stuff!
You can't get more infinite.
That reminds me of a couple of quotes, the first by Albert Einstein;
"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
And the second, I'm not sure who said it, but it goes something like;
"If the human mind was simple enough to be understood, we'd be too simple-minded to understand it."
Even the speed of light is only miles per second, both of which aren't now worth what they were in old money.
And because units of measure are shrinking, we think other bodies in the universe are going away from us, while they're actually rushing towards us at high speed (well, what would be high speed if speed hadn't been devalued).
Yes, because it is expanding in a different way from the way you think it is.
And you CAN get different 'sizes' of infinities (the Horizon programme linked to does a pretty decent job of explaining it IIRC)
'Universe' means 'everything' so the concept of there being something 'outside' it is nonsensical.
Same as 'before' the big bang. Time started then so the concept of 'before' is just as daft.
The point in itself is irrelevant though, because (using your basis) if the universe isn't infinite, and there are boundaries, there's still no distinct proof that there isn't something else.
The Universe (to me) is the void between galaxies. It's not everything.
Is it? I've read multiple theories on this big bang, and not all of them label that as the initiator of time.
I do believe you may be incorrect.
Just because pi is (probably) an infinite series, that doesn't imply that all possible sequences are contained within it. Although you may have come up with a plot to rival Michael Drosnin's bestseller. You just have to write a program that can search the first few billion digits of pi for spurious references to major historical moments, then find a really recent example that you can claim to have found before the event, along with some wild story of misadventure in which you failed to stop said event from occurring. If you like, I can act as your 'expert' who confirms that the likelihood of this being random is infinitely improbable. ;-)
I remember asking a teacher if there was an end to space and the blackness of it, it stumped her.
If its a sphere then it has to have an outside and an inside, and if so what's on the outside?
I can remember watching a movie and the universe was contained within a glass ball on a cats collar or am I dreaming that I saw a film like that.
So right when its BT Infinity were are talking about.:D
Pi is an infinite series, that is virtually certain. I don't understand why you think an infinite sequence of numbers could not contain any and all finite sequence of numbers? It makes perfectly logical sense to think that it would.
The argument against the "monkey and the typewriter" is that the monkey's actions are not truly random. Pi on the other hand is truly random (if it wasn't, we could calculate it to x decimal places without incredibly complex calculations).
For fun a few years back I looked into the squaring the circle problem. Being a programmer and mathematician, I was determined to either solve or understand why it didn't work, and I figured it out within a few hours. The problem is complexity vs simplicity. We can square two lines because we have incorrectly asserted a limited value on them. For example, if we measure 5cm with a ruler, what are the odds that it is exactly 5.0000000000...0? Virtually impossible. In reality, the "5cm" is completely immeasurable to true accuracy, as we can only measure to as far as our tools allow us. The reason a circle cannot be squared is that the circumference is not a finite length, we cannot simplify it to a number we understand in order to perform a calculation on it, as we can the side of a square. If we try to square a 5cm line to "real" values, we will also find that impossible. The only difference being with the line we incorrectly presume an end to it.
I've since concluded that virtually everything must be infinite, and we apply general concepts that are finite on top of it (consciousness, integers, etc). We have two apples, but what is an apple? It is a collection of atoms, and every apple is made up quite differently. The concept of an "apple" only exists at a macro level, underneath that it would be impossible to tell if a thing was an "apple" or not. It would be like specifying a drop of water in the ocean. Fortunately our brains work at a very macro level, so we can function, if we didn't we would be useless.
[/END BRAIN SPEW]
Okay, it appears that I was looking at a simulated image. I've only just noticed this. The image was just basically just saying that we live in a flat universe and not a rounded one.